DOCSLIB.ORG

Interstate 15

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

INTERSTATE 15 CORRIDOR SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 30, on July archived 10-50249 No. v. Valdes-Vega, U.S. FINAL - January 2009 This page is intentionally blank. 30, 2012 on July archived 10-50249 No. v. Valdes-Vega, U.S. Acknowledgements Many individuals aided in the preparation of material contained in the I-15 Corridor System Management Plan: Caltrans District 11 Pedro Orso-Delgado, District Director Bill Figge, Deputy District Director – Planning William Valle, Chief Deputy – Maintanence and Operations Joe Hull, Deputy District Director – Traffic Operations Mike McManus, Deputy District Director – Maintanence Christine Antoine, Associate Transportation Planner Sandro Bermudez, Transportation Engineer Connery Cepeda, Transportation Planner Gerard Chadergian, Senior Transportation Engineer Stacy Cottrell, Assistant Information Officer Seth Cutter, Transportation Planner Kimberly Dodson, Transportation Planner Lawrence Emerson, Senior Transportation Engineer Kelly Finn, Senior Environmental Planner 2012 Brian Hadley, Senior Transportation Engineer 30, on July Shirley Hautanen, Associate Transportation Planner archived John Hood, Graphic Designer II 10-50249 Douglas Hooper, Transportation EngineerNo. Bob James, Associate Transportation Planner v. Valdes-Vega, Barbara Kent, ResearchU.S. Program Specialist II (GIS) Jose Marquez, Transportation Planner Victor Mercado, Transportation Engineer Bruce Pastor, Associate Transportation Planner Brian Pecus, Senior Transportation Electrical Engineer Andrew Rice, Senior Transportation Surveyor Michael Roy, Transportation Planner Teresa Salazar, Graphic Designer II Chris Schmidt, Senior Transportation Planner David Stebbins, Senior Transportation Engineer Debra Stout, Senior Transportation Planner Kim Sturmer, Associate Transportation Planner Dennis Thompson, Associate Transportation Planner Aly Wayne, Transportation Planner San Diego Association of Governments Alex Estrella, Senior Transportation Planner Craig Scott, TransNet Project Manager Stephan Vance, Senior Transportation Planner 30, 2012 on July archived 10-50249 No. v. Valdes-Vega, U.S. 30, 2012 on July archived 10-50249 No. v. Valdes-Vega, U.S. 30, 2012 on July archived 10-50249 No. v. Valdes-Vega, U.S. 30, 2012 on July archived 10-50249 No. v. Valdes-Vega, U.S. 30, 2012 on July archived 10-50249 No. v. Valdes-Vega, U.S. INTERSTATE 15 CORRIDOR SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN (CSMP) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of the Corridor System Management Plan (CSMP) for Interstate 15 (I-15) is to provide a comprehensive strategy for managing, operating, and improving the I-15 corridor, as well as to provide a timeframe for prioritizing improvements and resources based on current and future performance. The CSMP utilizes a multi-disciplinary, multi-functional approach to coordinate and synthesize information. Coordination efforts include many functional areas within the District, including but not limited to Planning, Traffic Operations, Maintenance, and Program Management. These efforts also extend to the local jurisdictions and the County, as well as to the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), the region’s Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Three separate documents bundled together constitute the I-15 CSMP: the I-15 System Management Plan (SMP), the I-15 Managed Lanes Operations (MLOPS) Plan, and the I-15 Managed Lanes Traffic Incident Management (TIM) Plan. The latter two documents were approved by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) in April 2007, allowing the I-15 Middle Segment project to move forward. 30, 2012 July The I-15 corridor for this CSMP is defined as I-15 from State Routon e 78 (SR-78) to Interstate 8 (I- 8), State Route 15 (SR-15) from I-8 to State Routearchived 94 (SR-94), and SR-94 from SR-15 to 10-50249 Interstate 5 (I-5), along with adjacent majorNo. parallel arterials and other modal systems (Figure i). These limits are the logical termini for this CSMP based on route and traveler characteristics. For discussion purposes,v. Valdes-Vega,I-15/SR-15 will be identified as I-15 for the rest of this report. U.S. Figure i. Corridor Limits for I-15 Corridor Management Plan - ES-1 - I-15 System Management Plan (SMP) The I-15 SMP identifies the characteristics of the corridor. This includes but is not limited to demographics, existing corridor facilities, current and future corridor performance, corridor management strategies, and planned improvements to the facility. The development of the I-15 SMP is based on Strategic Growth Planning, the premise that investments in mobility throughout the system yield significant improvements in congestion relief and system management, which focuses on a coordinated and integrated operation of all elements of the transportation system (productivity, mobility, reliability, accessibility, safety, and preservation) with the intention of maximizing performance. The Strategic Growth Concept Pyramid outlines the strategies used to achieve reduced congestion (Figure ii); each level of the Pyramid is discussed in the SMP. Figure ii. Strategic Growth Concept Pyramid 30, 2012 on July archived 10-50249 Within the SMP project limits, I-15 is anNo. eight to ten-lane freeway with auxiliary/added lanes at various locations. A reversiblev. Valdes-Vega, High Occupany Vehicle (HOV) lane facility was constructed in the median of I-15U.S. between State Route 163 (SR-163) and State Route 56 (SR-56) and was opened to traffic in October 1988. While there are no continuous arterial routes parallel to I-15, several intermittent arterials provide a north-south alternative to travel in the corridor, including Centre City Parkway, Bear Valley Parkway, Pomerado Road, Black Mountain Road, and Kearny Villa Road. The I-15 corridor also encompasses alternative modes of transportation, including transit and bikeways. The Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) operates express bus services along the I-15 corridor. Greyhound also provides intercity bus service, with a major stop in Escondido, before continuing north into Riverside County. Currently within the corridor, north-south bicycle travel is primarily on parallel arterials, except for a two-mile stretch on I-15 from Pomerado Road/West Bernardo Drive north across the Lake Hodges Bridge to Via Rancho Parkway, and from Via Rancho Parkway north to Centre City Parkway. There are presently 24 park-and-ride (P&R) lots maintained by Caltrans near or adjacent to I-15, with a total of 1,919 spaces. As of November 2006, 547 vanpools participate in the SANDAG RideLink vanpool program that operates on the I-15 Corridor, of which 236 (43%) commute from Riverside County. I-15 currently suffers from severe congestion, affecting commuters, businesses, and inter- regional goods movement. Traffic along the corridor is subject to lengthy freeway queues that, on average, add 30 to 45 minutes to a typical weekday commute. Furthermore, due to the lack of - ES-2 - continuous arterial parallel routes or high-speed transit service, I-15 traffic is subject to additional delay during rainy conditions, incidents, and special events. Current annual average daily traffic (AADT) along the corridor is 290,000 vehicles per day, and is expected to approach 410,000 vehicles per day by 2030. During peak periods, the traffic mix includes 15-20% carpoolers, and a 60/40 directional split, with traffic demand higher on southbound I-15 in the AM peak period and on northbound I-15 in the PM peak period. Accident data indicates that there are 16 locations on northbound I-15 and 9 locations on southbound I-15 that had accident concentrations between 2001 and 2005. Analyses of accident data suggest that accidents are caused not by deficiencies of the freeway, but by congestion from excessive demand. Projected population and employment growth in the San Diego region will result in additional travel demand on the I-15 corridor. In particular, growth along the I-15 corridor from Escondido to Riverside County is expected to be higher than the San Diego regional average. The SMP lists SANDAG estimates for 2006 in population and housing, and ethnic composition for cities along the I-15 corridor, excluding unincorporated areas. SANDAG forecasts for 2030 show an increase in population, housing, and employment for these cities. The I-15 SMP outlines a variety of strategies to maximize mobility, including the region’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), Smart Growth, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), and the I-15 Interregional Partnership (IRP)’s Strategic Plan. Strategic growth forms the basis for the proposed transportation improvements and system 30, 2012 management in the I-15 Corridor. This system management approachJuly focuses on a coordinated and integrated operation of all elements of the transportation syonstem to maximize performance archived (productivity, mobility, reliability, accessibility, safety, and preservation). The transportation 10-50249 network is managed for its highest efficiency,No. coordinating across all modes, jurisdictions, and functions. Commitments identified in the 2007 RTP and used in the development of future v. Valdes-Vega, management improvementU.S. strategies for the I-15 Corridor include maintaining air quality standards, complying with the principles of environmental justice, and integrating transit/HOV use. For system monitoring and evaluation, the I-15 SMP utilizes the Freeway Performance Measurement System (PeMS), a traffic data collection, processing, and analysis tool created as a joint effort by Caltrans, the University
Recommended publications
  • Potential Managed Lane Alternatives

    Potential Managed Lane Alternatives

    Potential Managed Lane Alternatives 10/13/2017 Typical Section Between Junctions Existing Typical Section Looking North* *NLSD between Grand and Montrose Avenues is depicted. 1 Managed Lanes Managed Lanes (Options that convert one or more existing general purpose lanes to a managed lane to provide high mobility for buses and some autos) Potential managed lane roadway designs: • Option A – Three‐plus‐One Managed Lane (Bus‐only or Bus & Auto) • Option B –Two‐plus‐Two Managed Lanes • Option C – Three‐plus‐Two Reversible Managed Lanes • Option D – Four‐plus‐One Moveable Contraflow Lane (NB and SB, or SB Only) 2 1 10/13/2017 Option A – 3+1 Bus‐Only Managed Lane* Proposed Typical Section Looking North Between Junctions** *Converts one general purpose lane in each direction to a Bus‐Only Managed Lane. **NLSD between Grand and Montrose Avenues is depicted. 3 3+1 Bus‐Only Managed Lane • Benefits o Bus travel speeds would be unencumbered by vehicle speeds in adjacent travel lanes (same transit performance as Dedicated Transitway on Left Side) o Bus lanes would be available at all times and would not be affected by police or disabled vehicles o Bus lanes combined with exclusive bus‐only queue‐jump lanes at junctions would minimize bus travel times and maximize transit service reliability o Forward‐compatible with future light rail transit option • Challenges o Conversion of general purpose traffic lane to bus‐only operation will divert some traffic onto remaining NLSD lanes and/or adjacent street network 4 2 10/13/2017 Option A – 3+1 Managed Lane* Proposed Typical Section Looking North Between Junctions** *Converts one general purpose lane in each direction to a Shared Bus/Auto Managed Lane.
  • Socioeconomic Assessment for the Tonto National Forest

    Socioeconomic Assessment for the Tonto National Forest

    4. Access and Travel Patterns This section examines historic and current factors affecting access patterns and transportation infrastructure within the four counties surrounding Tonto National Forest (TNF). The information gathered is intended to outline current and future trends in forest access as well as potential barriers to access encountered by various user groups. Primary sources of data on access and travel patterns for the state’s national forests include the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), the Arizona Department of Commerce (ADOC), and the circulation elements of individual county comprehensive plans. Indicators used to assess access and travel patterns include existing road networks and planned improvements, trends in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on major roadways, seasonal traffic flows, and county transportation planning priorities. Additional input on internal access issues has been sought directly from forest planning staff. Various sources of information for the area surrounding TNF cite the difficulty of transportation planning in the region given its vast geographic scale, population growth, pace of development, and constrained transportation funding. In an effort to respond effectively to such challenges, local and regional planning authorities stress the importance of linking transportation planning with preferred land uses. Data show that the area surrounding Tonto National Forest saw relatively large increases in VMT between 1990 and 2000, mirroring the region’s relatively strong population growth over the same period. Information gathered from the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and county comprehensive plans suggest that considerable improvements are currently scheduled for the region’s transportation network, particularly when compared to areas surrounding Arizona’s other national forests.
  • Moveable Barrier November 30, 2015

    Moveable Barrier November 30, 2015

    Work Zone Barrier ‐ Moveable Barrier November 30, 2015 TEST LEVEL NAME/MANUFACTURER ILLUSTRATION SECTION DETAILS ANCHORAGE DETAILS DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS NCHRP 350 MASH Moveable Barrier Quickchange Moveable Barrier and Reactive Tension TL‐3 Section Dimensions Anchored Installation Quickchange Moveable Barrier Systems (QMB) (B63, CC66B) Physical crash testing was conducted on an anchored system. Height: 2.67' Contact manufacturer for description of system. Barriers have a "T" top which acts as a lifting surface for the Barrier Transfer Machine (BTM). Length: 3.28' Lindsay Transportation Solutions Width: 1' (top), 2'(base) Dynamic deflection (TL‐3): 4.42''; Test Length: 246'. BTM lifts the barrier through a conveyor system, transferring the barrier laterally while keeping the Weight: 1,433 lbs. system in tension. http://www.barriersystemsinc.com/applicatio Section Connections ns Variable Length Barrier (VLB) consist of two steel shells equipped with a hydraulic mechanism which allows it Pin connections. to change length when unlock by transfer machine, ensuring the barrier installation remains in tension. Steel Reactive Tension System (B40, TL‐3 Section Dimensions Anchored Installation B69, B69A, CC66B) Height: 2.67' Tethered to a ground anchor capable of supporting 100,000 VLB sections are always located in the transfer machine lbs. barrier load or an additional 80 SRTS elements. during repositing of the barrier. Length: 3.25' The end of the barrier should be protected. A system Width: 1' (top), 2'(base) Dynamic deflection (TL‐3): 2.3'; Test Length: 246'. designed for use with this barrier is the ABSORB 350 crash cushion that is pinned together and consists of a Weight: 1,499 lbs.
  • RES 21-025-R 2021 Crackfilling Program.Pdf

    RES 21-025-R 2021 Crackfilling Program.Pdf

    TO: Committee of the Whole – City Services 3/2 FROM: Timothy Grimm, P.E., Civil Engineer DATE: February 24, 2021 RE: Resolution 21-025-R, Authorizing Execution of a Contract for the 2021 Crackfilling Program with Denler, Inc. for $193,316.75 Summary This project will include crackfilling City streets and will also include sealcoating, striping, and crackfilling. The fiberized crackfilling consists of cleaning and sealing of any cracks, voids or joints two inches in width or less with asphalt cement reinforced by polypropylene fibers. Map exhibits are provided in the contract showing the street and parking lot locations to be addressed this year. Crackfilling is a very cost-effective preventative maintenance technique and is performed routinely to keep water and debris from getting into the pavement. In addition, crackfill helps keep the roadway in safe condition by interrupting the propagation of cracking, potholes and other distresses in the roadway. The project is expected to start in early May and will be completed by June 25, 2021. Background The total budget for the annual crackfill program is $200,000. Estimated quantities are based on the number of streets areas that are currently in need of crackfilling maintenance and the severity of asphalt cracking. The sole funding source for the project is: • Street Maintenance MFT, 18-47-6471 ($200,000) Proposals Bids were opened on February 18, 2021 with the following results: 1. Denler, Inc. Bid: $175,742.50 2. SKC Construction, Inc Bid: $185,716.50 The lowest bidder for the 2021 Crackfilling Program was Denler, Inc. of Joliet, Illinois.
  • Freeway Management and Operations Handbook September 2003 (See Revision History Page for Chapter Updates) 6

    Freeway Management and Operations Handbook September 2003 (See Revision History Page for Chapter Updates) 6

    FREEWAY MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS HANDBOOK FINAL REPORT September 2003 (Updated June 2006) Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the object of the document. 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA-OP-04-003 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Freeway Management and Operations Handbook September 2003 (see Revision History page for chapter updates) 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Louis G. Neudorff, P.E, Jeffrey E. Randall, P.E., Robert Reiss, P..E, Robert Report Gordon, P.E. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Siemens ITS Suite 1900 11. Contract or Grant No. 2 Penn Plaza New York, NY 10121 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Office of Transportation Management Research Federal Highway Administration Room 3404 HOTM 400 Seventh Street, S.W. 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington D.C., 20590 15. Supplementary Notes Jon Obenberger, FHWA Office of Transportation Management, Contracting Officers Technical Representative (COTR) 16. Abstract This document is the third such handbook for freeway management and operations. It is intended to be an introductory manual – a resource document that provides an overview of the various institutional and technical issues associated with the planning, design, implementation, operation, and management of a freeway network.
  • John Ward Duckett

    John Ward Duckett

    The Elmer A. Sperry Award 2012 FOR ADVANCING THE ART OF TRANSPORTATION The Elmer A. Sperry Award The Elmer A. Sperry Award is given in recognition of the distinguished engineering contribution, which through application, has proved itself in actual service, and has advanced the art of transportation whether by land, sea, air, or space. In the words of Edmondo Quattrocchi, sculptor of the Elmer A. Sperry Medal: “This Sperry Medal symbolizes the struggle of man’s mind against the forces of nature. The horse represents the primitive state of uncontrolled power. This, as suggested by the clouds and celestial fragments, is essentially the same in all the elements. The Gyroscope, superimposed on these, represents the bringing of this power under control for man’s purposes.” Presentation of The Elmer A. Sperry Award for 2012 to JOHN WARD DUCKETT in recognition for the Development of the Quick-Change Movable Barrier by The Elmer A. Sperry Board of Award under the sponsorship of the: American Society of Mechanical Engineers Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers SAE International Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics American Society of Civil Engineers at the SAE WORLD CONGRESS http://www.sae.org/congress/techprogram/cfp.htm Detroit, Michigan April 16-18, 2013 John Ward Duckett John Duckett was born in Hollywood, California on March 2, 1929, where he lived until he was 15. He attended a Catholic grammar school and Bancroft Junior High before his family moved to San Marino, California, where he attended Flintridge Prep High School. He then attended the University of California at Berkeley where he received his BS in Industrial Engineering in 1956.
  • Appendix L: Design Guidelines: I-5 NCC Project

    Appendix L: Design Guidelines: I-5 NCC Project

    Appendix L: Design Guidelines: I-5 NCC Project Appendix L: Design Guidelines: I-5 NCC Project I-5 North Coast Corridor Project Final EIR/EIS page L-1 Appendix L: Design Guidelines: I-5 NCC Project I-5 North Coast Corridor Project Final EIR/EIS page L-2 Design Guidelines Interstate 5 North Coast Corridor Project September 2013 Prepared by: Caltrans District 11 | T.Y. Lin International | Safdie Rabines Architects | Estrada Land Planning Interstate 5 North Coast Corridor Project – Design Guidelines Design Guidelines Interstate 5 North Coast Corridor Project Prepared by: Caltrans District 11 4050 Taylor Street San Diego, CA 92110 T.Y. Lin International 404 Camino del Rio South, Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92108 | 619.692.1920 Safdie Rabines Architects 925 Ft. Stockton Drive San Diego, CA 92123 | 619.297.6153 Estrada Land Planning 755 Broadway Circle, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92101 | 619.236.0143 Interstate 5 North Coast Corridor Project – Design Guidelines Interstate 5 North Coast Corridor Project – Design Guidelines Table of Contents Design Guidelines Interstate 5 North Coast Corridor Project Table of Contents I. Project Background D. Design Themes....................17 vi. Typical Freeway Undercrossing. 36 vii. Typical Bridge Details. 37 A. Introduction....................1 i. Corridor Theme Elements. 17 ii. Corridor Theme Priorities. 19 - Southern Bluff Theme....................38 B. Purpose.......................1 - Coastal Mesa Theme.....................39 iii. Corridor Theme Units. 20 C. Components & Products. 1 - Northern Urban Theme. 40 - Southern Bluff Theme....................21 D. The Proposed Project. 2 - Coastal Mesa Theme.....................22 B. Walls.............................41 E. Previous Relevant Documents. 3 - Northern Urban Theme. 23 i. Theme Unit Specific Wall Concepts.
  • Route Map 5 Ä H339 Æ

    Route Map 5 Ä H339 Æ

    ASTORIA Oregon Department of Transportation Warrenton H104 Svensen Approved routes for Mayger 30 Westport ¤£ Clatskanie Æ 101 Olney Ä Rainier ¤£ H105 Triples Combinations. Æ Gearhart C L A T S O PÄ 47 Prescott SEASIDE Goble H332 202 Mist 73300 Movement is authorized 395 Umapine Necanicum Cold ¤£2 Jewell ¤£ Springs Jct. C O L U M B I A Æ Ä MP 9.76 Umatilla Jct. Milton-Freewater Flora Ä Æ Æ Cannon Beach Route Map 5 Ä H339 Æ H103 Pittsburg Irrigon Ä only under authority of an Columbia City Æ Over-Dimension Permit Unit Ä Elsie 47 730 Holdman 53 ST. HELENS ¤£ Helix 11 Vernonia Boardman 0 207 26 7 30 82 Athena Æ ¤£ Ä Over-Dimension Permit. ¤£ Revised March 2020 HERMISTON 3 ¨¦§ H Heppner Jct. Æ Ä H334 Weston Scappoose Stanfield 3 Nehalem 3 Adams 204 Manzanita HOOD Permission not granted to 5 RIVER cross RR crossing at MP 102.40 30 37 Æ 84 30 Echo Ä Wheeler Buxton £ in Hood River 84 ¤£ Arlington H W A L L O W A ¤ 3 Cascade ¨¦§ Biggs § MP 13.22 ¨¦ 26 Locks Jct. Rufus 3 Æ Rockaway Celilo Blalock Ä H320 1 Æ T I L L A M O O K ¤£ Mosier Ä 82 Beach Banks North H281 PENDLETON Plains PORTLAND Æ Ä Minam Imnaha Odell Wallowa Æ Ä 74 Garibaldi Wasco 207 W A S H I N G T O N The Elgin . Bay City Troutdale Multnomah Æ CorneliusÄ Fairview Dalles t Forest HILLSBORO H O O D H282 206 i 6 Grove Falls G I L L I A M Wood 84 Oceanside Beaverton R I V E R U M A T I L L A Summerville m H131 Village Ione r 8 ¨¦§ Lostine Æ Parkdale 197 Ä Gresham Moro 0 e Tillamook M U L T N O M A H MP 83.00 ¤£ 30 Imbler 5 Netarts ENTERPRISE Æ Ä Pilot 3 Æ Ä £ Æ Ä ¤ p Æ Ä Rock H Gaston Tigard
  • Last Link of I-90 Ends 30-Year Saga by Peggy Reynolds, Seattle Times, 9 Sept 1993

    Last Link of I-90 Ends 30-Year Saga by Peggy Reynolds, Seattle Times, 9 Sept 1993

    Last Link Of I-90 Ends 30-Year Saga By Peggy Reynolds, Seattle Times, 9 Sept 1993 Erica Clibborn's red convertible will be one of the first cars Sunday across the new Lacey V. Murrow Floating Bridge, last link in a project that started before Erica was born. The University of Washington junior, who will be going home to Mercer Island for Sunday dinner, was born in 1973, the year a federal court sent the Seattle-area stretch of Interstate 90 back to square one. By then, I-90 already reached most of the 3,063 miles from Boston to south Bellevue, and the final major segment had been in the works for 10 years. It would be another 20 years before that last 7 miles would be finished. That completion will be marked this weekend with an array of public events, and Clibborn and other drivers should be able to go across the eastbound span by 5 p.m. Sunday. That opening means that I-90 survived the anti-government sentiment of the late 1960s, the mass-transit worship of the '70s and the budget cutbacks of the '80s - even while other urban interstate projects were biting the dust in New York, Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Washington, San Francisco and Portland. Nevertheless, whether or not I-90 was really needed was subject to debate at all levels. It attracted a formidable enemies list, and was rescued regularly by a cast of hundreds. Without any one of its friends in local governments, on the state Transportation Commission, in the Legislature and in Congress, I-90 could have ended in south Bellevue instead of making it to its junction with Interstate 5 in Seattle.
  • I-90 Tolling Update

    I-90 Tolling Update

    I-90 Tolling Update John White Director of Tolled Corridors Development Paula Hammond Steve Reinmuth Secretary of Transportation Chief of Staff Seattle City Council January 28, 2012 I-90 is part of the Cross-Lake Washington Corridor • Represents two major east-west “Cross- Lake” travel corridors: I-90 and SR 520. • WSDOT is tolling SR 520 as part of a multi- faceted financing strategy to help generate enough revenue to fund replacement of the structurally-vulnerable bridge. • A new 520 bridge will give Cross-Lake WA travelers a safer, more reliable trip. 2 Funding for the SR 520 Program Construction Unfunded Program cost estimate (Oct. 2012): $4.13 billion What’s funded: $2.72 billion (includes sales tax deferral) • Pontoon construction in Grays Harbor. • The floating bridge and landings. • Eastside transit and HOV improvements. • The north half of the west approach bridge. Updated November 2012 Costs and Funding for Replacing SR 520 Bridge SR 520 program cost estimate $4.128 B Funding received to date $2.724 B State and local funding (Nickel and TPA) $0.55 B Federal funding $0.12 B SR 520 Account (tolling and future federal funds) $1.91 B Toll proceeds • TIFIA $300M • Triple pledge bonds $550M • First tier toll $159M • PAYGO $74M Federal proceeds • GARVEE $825M Deferred sales tax $0.14 B Unfunded need $1.404 B Program cost estimate based on 2012 CEVP - updated 10/25/12 4 Early Indicators of 520 Toll Success • Meeting or beating traffic forecasts. • Meeting revenue forecasts. • Most people are paying with Good To Go! accounts. – More than 384,000 active Good To Go! accounts.
  • I-15 Corridor System Master Plan Update 2017

    I-15 Corridor System Master Plan Update 2017

    CALIFORNIA NEVADA ARIZONA UTAH I-15 CORRIDOR SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2017 MARCH 2017 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The I-15 Corridor System Master Plan (Master Plan) is a commerce, port authorities, departments of aviation, freight product of the hard work and commitment of each of the and passenger rail authorities, freight transportation services, I-15 Mobility Alliance (Alliance) partner organizations and providers of public transportation services, environmental their dedicated staff. and natural resource agencies, and others. Individuals within the four states and beyond are investing Their efforts are a testament of outstanding partnership and their time and resources to keep this economic artery a true spirit of collaboration, without which this Master Plan of the West flowing. The Alliance partners come from could not have succeeded. state and local transportation agencies, local and interstate I-15 MOBILITY ALLIANCE PARTNERS American Magline Group City of Orem Authority Amtrak City of Provo Millard County Arizona Commerce Authority City of Rancho Cucamonga Mohave County Arizona Department of Transportation City of South Salt Lake Mountainland Association of Arizona Game and Fish Department City of St. George Governments Bear River Association of Governments Clark County Department of Aviation National Park Service - Lake Mead National Recreation Area BNSF Railway Clark County Public Works Nellis Air Force Base Box Elder County Community Planners Advisory Nevada Army National Guard Brookings Mountain West Committee on Transportation County
  • Cast-In-Place Concrete Barriers

    Cast-In-Place Concrete Barriers

    rev. May 14, 2018 Cast-In-Place Concrete Barriers April 23, 2013 NOTE: Reinforcing steel in each of these barrier may vary and have been omitted from the drawings for clarity, only the Ontario Tall Wall was successfully crash tested as a unreinforced section. TEST LEVEL NAME/MANUFACTURER ILLUSTRATION PROFILE GEOMETRIC DIMENSIONS CHARACTERISTICS AASHTO NCHRP 350 MASH New Jersey Safety-Shape Barrier TL-3 TL-3 32" Tall 32" Tall The New Jersey Barrier was the most widely used safety shape concrete barrier prior to the introduction of the F-shape. As shown, the "break-point" between the 55 deg and 84 deg slope is 13 inches above the pavement, including the 3 inch vertical reveal. The flatter lower slope is intended to lift the vehicle which TL-4 TL-4 http://tf13.org/Guides/hardwareGuide/index.php?a absorbs some energy, and allows vehicles impacting at shallow angles to be 32" Tall 36" Tall X ction=view&hardware=111 redirected with little sheet metal damage; however, it can cause significant instability to vehicles impacting at high speeds and angles. Elligibility Letter TL-5 TL-5 B-64 - Feb 14, 2000 (NCHRP 350) 42" Tall 42" Tall NCHRP Project 22-14(03)(MASH TL3) NCHRP 20-07(395) (MASH TL4 & TL5) F-shape Barrier TL-3 TL-3 The F-shape has the same basic geometry as the New Jersey barrier, but the http://tf13.org/Guides/hardwareGuide/index.php?a 32" Tall 32" Tall "break-point" between the lower and upper slopes is 10 inches above the ction=view&hardware=109 pavement.